Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Q24

9/11: The Flight 77 Eyewitnesses

2,199 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Scott G

To hear is not necessarily to understand. Which is why I've been repeating certain things in various ways to try to get you to -understand- what I'm saying.

Unless I ask for clarification, you can take it as a given that I understand where you are coming from.

I generally don't like taking things as givens unless I see evidence to back it up. If -I- believe that you don't understand, I will try to explain it again until I feel otherwise. A second option is to give up on you (or whoever I'm talking to). A third option is to decide that the other person is trying to be deceptive and things of this nature; this is a mistake that many people have made, but it's a mistake I try to avoid.

I have read all of your posts in this thread multiple times, there is nothing I've missed. If I don't respond to a particular point it is likely because I think your reasoning is irrelevant or flawed and I don't want to spend a dozen posts arguing about it to get nowhere – that doesn't get through the exercise I'm attempting here.

The issue, ofcourse, is that because we don't agree on what is and isn't irrelevant and/or flawed, sparks can fly. However, I now agree that we've certainly gone over Probst enough.

I'll try more to indicate to you that I've understood and how I've accounted for each point in the summary.

Thanks.

Is this what you meant all along? Words can certainly confuse, especially when enough aren't used for clarification; I had thought that you'd meant only the last one; our interpretation.

I guess I was referring to all interpretation including our own. I'll get onto that below…

Alright.

Perhaps this deserves further explanation.

The answer I gave: "our differences in how eyewitness testimony should be treated are irreconcilable at a fundamental level."

Let me show what I'm talking about…

60343.jpg

Hopefully you recognise the scene.

Which of the red arrows indicates a path that an eyewitness might describe as "over the Navy Annex"?

B.

This is an example of why we will never agree on the eyewitness testimony.

I would answer that a path could follow A, B or C and an eyewitness might describe it as "over the Navy Annex".

In fact, we could place an arrow anywhere in the sky in that particular image and I would not be at all surprised for an eyewitness to describe it as "over the Navy Annex". It is the biggest building in the area; the obvious reference point.

Ah, I see where you're coming from on this now. But the fact of the matter is that most, if not all, of the eyewitnesses have placed the plane over the Navy Annex. This is particularly important in the case of the eyewitnesses who were -in- the Navy Annex. But perhaps most importantly, as I've mentioned before, are the witnesses at the Citgo gas station; it would be pretty hard to confuse seeing a plane pass them on the North side or the South side of the gas station, as I believe PFT and CIT have made clear.

Here are the three areas where Probst interprets the event: -

  • Probst might have observed the plane at 'A' but perceived it was headed across his view of the Navy Annex (if you extend that arrow it is moving from left to right across the image). When he makes that split second observation, his obvious interpretation might be, "over the Navy Annex".
  • Probst might have observed the plane at 'A' but, when he later recalls it, the memory is not precise (not many have photographic memories). But he does know that the plane came from somewhere above and in direction of the Navy Annex. Again the obvious interpretation he might provide is, "over the Navy Annex".
  • Probst might have observed the plane at 'A' but, even if his memory were unusually perfect, he's not likely to put it in words, "It came kinda over the Navy Annex but a bit more to the left over that non-descript building just the other side of Columbia Pike." Once more the obvious interpretation he gives might be simply, "over the Navy Annex".

I will grant you that had Probst been the only person to place the plane over the Navy Annex, that'd be one thing. But as I said, many did. But again, as I've mentioned, I think that the Citgo witnesses are far more conclusive.

Then we read his comment, "over the Navy Annex" - how should we interpret it?

We could be inflexible about it, take it to the letter, fail to account for nuances of the human memory described above. In which case, we would have to say Probst saw the plane at 'B' (that is the arrow literally "over the Navy Annex" which you picked out).

Of course then, we'd be wrong…

You've shown no evidence that we'd be wrong; only speculations that this could be so.

Do you see why I will never agree with you that the plane was at 'B' based on an eyewitness claim of "over the Navy Annex"?

I see that you could be doubtful that the witnesses were right that it was over the Navy Annex. But like I said, there are other witnesses that have a far more clear cut reference point; the Citgo gas station. And then there are the witnesses near the Arlington Cemetary...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Ah, I see where you're coming from on this now. But the fact of the matter is that most, if not all, of the eyewitnesses have placed the plane over the Navy Annex. This is particularly important in the case of the eyewitnesses who were -in- the Navy Annex. But perhaps most importantly, as I've mentioned before, are the witnesses at the Citgo gas station; it would be pretty hard to confuse seeing a plane pass them on the North side or the South side of the gas station, as I believe PFT and CIT have made clear.

Wheelhouse, Zakhem and numerous others did not place the plane over the Annex. Neither did any of the Citgo witnesses. And I fear you are still missing the point – it is expected that the Annex would be used as a reference point by some witnesses whether the plane was directly over it or not.

Anyhow, are you able to explain why we should discount Rodney Washington yet?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=219063&view=findpost&p=4153267

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Ah, I see where you're coming from on this now. But the fact of the matter is that most, if not all, of the eyewitnesses have placed the plane over the Navy Annex. This is particularly important in the case of the eyewitnesses who were -in- the Navy Annex. But perhaps most importantly, as I've mentioned before, are the witnesses at the Citgo gas station; it would be pretty hard to confuse seeing a plane pass them on the North side or the South side of the gas station, as I believe PFT and CIT have made clear.

Wheelhouse, Zakhem and numerous others did not place the plane over the Annex.

Ah yes, Wheelhouse. He's also the one who falsely alleges that there was a plane shadowing the pentaplane. We've disagreed on Zakhem's placement of the plane, not to mention the fact that I think she had a pretty poor view of the pentaplane's approach. As to others, I'd have to know the names of said others before being able to say that I agree with you or not on them.

Neither did any of the Citgo witnesses.

I'll assume that you're right on this for now, but I don't think they were looking at the Navy Annex at the time it approached anyway. Not only this, but I think that, if anything, they generally place the plane -north- of the Navy Annex, adding weight to the notion that the plane flew North of the Citgo gas station. PFT has also shown that had the plane flown south of their position, their view would have been dramatically different.

And I fear you are still missing the point – it is expected that the Annex would be used as a reference point by some witnesses whether the plane was directly over it or not.

Using the Navy Annex as a reference point doesn't mean that they will all state that it flew over the Navy Annex simply because of this. If a person had a good view of the plane while the plane allegedly flew over the Navy Annex, I think this is what they would report; and most of them seem to have done just that.

Anyhow, are you able to explain why we should discount Rodney Washington yet?

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=4153267

Um, I'm getting there :-p...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Eyewitness #3: Rodney Washington

Reported September 12, in the Boston Globe: -

Rodney Washington, a systems engineer for a Pentagon contractor, was stuck in stand-still traffic a few hundred yards from the Pentagon when the American Airlines jet roared overhead from the southwest.

''It was extremely loud, as you can imagine, a plane that size, it was deafening,'' Washington said.

The plane was flying low and rapidly descended, Washington said, knocking over light poles before hitting the ground on a helicopter pad just in front of the Pentagon and essentially bouncing into it.

It ''landed there and the momentum took it into the Pentagon,'' Washington said. ''There was a very, very brief delay and then it exploded.''

Washington speculated that it could have been worse: ''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court.''

The fact he states, "momentum took it into the Pentagon" and, "''If it had kept altitude a little bit higher…" confirm first that he saw the impact and second that he did not see the plane fly over the building (a fact that we will see is consistent with all eyewitnesses).

So why should a third eyewitness, Rodney Washington, be discounted?

Ok, my points:

1- Are you a believer in the Amazing Pentalawn ™? Seriously, there's no way that the plane could have hit the pentalawn and "bounced" up again only to hit the Pentagon a moment later. Many witnesses believe that the plane "bounced" off the ground before hitting the pentagon, but all evidence shows that the pentalawn was untouched by any large object. As I've mentioned before, this notion that the plane "bounced" makes much more sense if the plane actually pulled up a bit at the last moment.

2- When you combine this idea of a "bounce" with his statement that if "it had kept altitude a little bit higher it probably would have landed in the middle of the Pentagon, in that court'', it lends further credence to the notion that it actually -did- fly a bit higher. Why? Because the pentagon wasn't initially damaged on the upper floors; it was the lower floors. So it makes more sense that the plane simply flew over the pentagon and the damage was caused by explosives not the plane. This higher altitude at between 2nd and 3rd level is repeated by almost all alleged witnesses in the immediate vicinity. Lincoln Liebner (who also described a ´helicopter´ being struck) repeats this discrepancy in altitude. Mary Ann Owens in her original interview stated that ¨The plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon, PERHAPS at the third-floor level.¨

Incidentally, some witnesses believe that there was a small delay between the pentaplane allegedly hitting the pentagon and the explosion, which also lends credence to the probability that the plane didn't cause the explosion, but happened soon after the pentaplane began its flyover of the pentagon. From CIT's Debunk of detractor witness links article:

Wanda Ramey claims that the plane ´skipped up´ from the middle of the lawn before ´impact´ and that there was a slight ´pause´ before the explosion.

"Recalling those moments again, Ramey said it appeared the building sucked the plane up inside. "A few seconds later, I heard a loud boom and I saw a huge fireball and lots of smoke," she said.

Noel Sepulveda also claims that the plane ´stuck out of the building´ before exploding a moment later.

I just realized that Onesliceshort agrees with my conclusion and had more to say as well:

************

On deeper inspection as has been mentioned regarding these witnesses, many DEDUCED an ´impact´ given their POVs and the circumstances.

NONE describe the SOC final low level approach.

IMHO, the description of the lawn being struck first was the detonation of the explosives in the split second before reaching the facade.

The plane ´skipping up´ was the initial manouevre of the flyover from between the second and third level of the Pentagon.

The Pentagon has four floors. This manouevre would have been VERY possible.

The five second full expansion of the fireball would have supplied MORE than enough time and distraction to pull this off.

This is opinion based on not only the NOC testimony which is fatal to the official story, but closer examination of ALL testimony whether they believed they saw an ´impact´ or not.

************

Edited by Scott G
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Hooray, Rodney Washington! :w00t:

Just a note…

You do realise that a pull-up short of the Pentagon wall leaves the plane jetting into the air, visible to all eyewitness around the building?

An event which not a single person reported.

Like this: -

74046.jpg

It is aerodynamically impossible for your Pentaplane to fly low across the rooftop like this: -

62f50.jpg

If the plane flew low over the Pentagon, then it had to be clear of the roof well before reaching the façade.

But still…

What I’m getting for your explanation of Rodney Washington’s account, is that due to the description of the plane “bouncing”, we might speculate he was mistaken about it hitting the Pentagon.

Is that ultimately the conclusion of what you have said, we put him down as… simply mistaken?

There was just one other thing I’d like your input on. When we went through the Probst account, you took pains to note that sections were not direct quotes. I can’t be bothered to go back and check the exact words, but you said something like, “I have not seen a direct quote from Probst”. Now I actually think that is an entirely legitimate complaint (at least it would have been, if quotes from Probst describing the impact did not exist and you hadn’t just missed them). You do realise that the “bouncing” description is not a direct quote either? Yet here, not only do you accept it, but are prepared to form a speculative case around it that flies in the face of the direct quote from Washington, “the momentum took it into the Pentagon”.

How do we decide which indirect quotes are ‘good’ and which are ‘bad’?

How do we decide which indirect quotes are even better than direct quotes?

You are clearly applying some sort of rule, what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

Ok, my points:

1- Are you a believer in the Amazing Pentalawn ™? Seriously, there's no way that the plane could have hit the pentalawn and "bounced" up again only to hit the Pentagon a moment later. Many witnesses believe that the plane "bounced" off the ground before hitting the pentagon, but all evidence shows that the pentalawn was untouched by any large object.

:tu:

I think that although the 'witnesses' statements are often contradictory (and I think this is deliberate)

that their testimonies are designed to incorporate elements of the Official Account, re. the Pentagon.

And this one is to try and explain why clean bits of debris are outside and away from the building.....?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Hooray, Rodney Washington! :w00t:

Laugh :-)

Just a note…

You do realise that a pull-up short of the Pentagon wall leaves the plane jetting into the air, visible to all eyewitness around the building?

An event which not a single person reported.

Like this: -

74046.jpg

It is aerodynamically impossible for your Pentaplane to fly low across the rooftop like this: -

62f50.jpg

If the plane flew low over the Pentagon, then it had to be clear of the roof well before reaching the façade.

Clearly it would be nice to have Pilots for 9/11 Truth do some calculations as to what would be aerodynamically possible, but since Onesliceshort, a member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, is the one who originally came up with the idea, my bet is that it is in fact aerodynamically possible. I'm thinking something like your first picture, but with a less steep pull up; also, the explosion would mask the plane from that side. As you may have heard, Roosevelt -did- see a plane coming from the direction of the alleged pentagon crash site on the other side of the pentagon; I think it's quite possible that he may have been seeing the pentaplane's getaway. And let's not forget Erik Dihle's testimony of individuals who claimed that there was an explosion at the pentagon and that the plane "kept on going".

But still…

What I'm getting for your explanation of Rodney Washington's account, is that due to the description of the plane "bouncing", we might speculate he was mistaken about it hitting the Pentagon.

Is that ultimately the conclusion of what you have said, we put him down as… simply mistaken?

No. I put up a long spiel, and you reduce it so "simply mistaken" -.-. To reiterate, he placed the plane too high to have caused the damage seen in the original pentagon hole. It seems that the pull up was initiated well before arriving at the pentagon; thus the "bounce". When combined with the fact that he placed the plane's approach too high up on the pentagon to have caused the damage, the conclusion becomes clear; the pentaplane didn't hit the pentagon, it flew over it, with the fireball masking this fact. Assuming that there was some truth in the 5 frame video, you'll notice one thing; there were -2- explosions; the first jutted forward, the second upward; that first explosion may well account for all the debris on the pentalawn; the second one may have done a good job of essentially putting a curtain of fire up to mask the pentaplane's flyover.

There was just one other thing I'd like your input on. When we went through the Probst account, you took pains to note that sections were not direct quotes. I can't be bothered to go back and check the exact words, but you said something like, "I have not seen a direct quote from Probst". Now I actually think that is an entirely legitimate complaint (at least it would have been, if quotes from Probst describing the impact did not exist and you hadn't just missed them).

It was an observation, not a complaint. For those picking up on this conversation now, after I saw bee's 30 second video interview of Probst in post #4, this is what I said:

********************

In any case, he doesn't give a flight path in that 30 second interview; the ASCE report gives more detail of the flight path he observed, most importantly mentioning that he saw it fly over the Navy Annex, which concords with CIT's witnesses, not the official SoC flight path. This being said, I think it would be good to review his statements in said 30 second interview. He stated:

The engine was about 6 feet off the ground, coming right at me, and I laid out on the ground. I watched the plane come over top of me, the street lights were falling on both sides of where I was. 2 engines from the plane, which hang way down underneath the plane, both hit, short of the pentagon in this area out here… and then there was a fireball right after that… and I can remember the tail section.. disappearing into the fireball.

First of all, if the plane was so close to him, he should have experienced a lot of turbulence; and yet, he makes no mention of this, which strongly suggests that the plane wasn't as close to him as he alleges. As to his statement regarding the pentaplane's engines, could it be that he says that the engine was 6 feet off the ground at that point because he was -told- that this was the case? He states that the street lights were falling on both sides of where he was but he doesn't state that the plane had anything to do with it. Perhaps more importantly, he doesn't say that he himself observed this happening, suggesting that he may have heard of this from someone instead of witnessing it himself. He mentions that the 2 engines on the plane hit short of the pentagon "in this area out here".. and yet there are many pictures clearly demonstrating that the pentagon lawn was untouched. Have you seen the video pentagon strike? It makes a clear reference to this absurdity with its reference to "the amazing pentalawn" that can apparently be hit by massive passenger plane engines and yet remain unscathed. Finally there's his reference to a "fireball right after that" and his remembering that the tail section dissapeared into the fireball. Now here's the thing; he doesn't actually say that he witnessed the plane crashing into the pentagon, only that he saw the tail dissapearing into a fireball; but if the explosion was timed to coincide with the pentaplane's going over the pentagon, this is what you would see.

********************

I've now found more information regarding Frank Probst' testimony and analysis of it. From 911-strike.com's Missing Confetti Mystery article:

********************

Probing Frank Probst

http://fire.nist.gov.../PDF/b03017.pdf from page 13

3.2 EYEWITNESS INTERVIEWS

On January 8, 2002, BPS team leader Paul Mlakar interviewed three eyewitnesses-two of whom witnessed the impact of the aircraft and one of whom witnessed the subsequent partial collapse of the building.
All three are professional staff members of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office
and collectively provide
a coherent and credible account
of the events.

Frank Probst
, 58, is a West Point graduate, decorated Vietnam veteran, and retired army lieutenant colonel who has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1995. At approximately 9:30 A.M. on September 11 he left the Wedge 1 construction site trailer, where he had been watching live television coverage of the second plane strike into the World Trade Center towers. He began walking to the Modular Office Compound, which is located beyond the extreme north end of the Pentagon North Parking Lot, for a meeting at 10 A.M.
As he approached the heliport
(figure 3.2) he noticed a plane flying low over the Annex and heading right for him. According to the Arlington County after-action report (Arlington County, 2002), this occurred at 938 a.m.
The aircraft pulled up, seemingly aiming for the first floor of the building, and leveled off. Probst hit the ground and observed the right wing tip pass through the portable 750 kW generator that provides backup power to Wedge 1.The right engine took out the chainlink fence and posts surrounding the generator. The left engine struck an external steam vault before the fuselage entered the building. As the fireball from the crash moved toward him, Probst ran toward the South Parking Lot and recalls falling down twice. Fine pieces of wing debris floated down about him.
The diesel fuel for the portable generator ignited while he was running.

Don Mason
, 62, is a communications specialist who retired from the United States Air Force after 25 years of service. He has worked for the Pentagon Renovation Program Office on information management and telecommunications since 1996.
At the time of the crash he was stopped in traffic west of the building. The plane approached low, flying directly over him and possibly clipping the antenna of the vehicle immediately behind him, and struck three light poles between him and the building. He saw his colleague Frank Probst directly in the plane's path,
and he witnessed a small explosion as the portable generator was struck by the right wing. The aircraft struck the building between the heliport fire station and the generator, its left wing slightly lower than its right wing. As the plane entered the building, he recalled seeing the tail of the plane. The fireball that erupted upon the plane's impact rose above the structure. Mason then noticed flames coming from the windows to the left of the point of impact and observed small pieces of the facade falling to the ground. Law enforcement personnel moved Mason's vehicle and other traffic on, and he did not witness the subsequent partial collapse of the building.

Rich Fitzharris,
52, is an electrical engineer and a former residential contractor. He has been the operations group chief of the Pentagon Renovation Program Office since 1996. He was in the Modular Office Compound at the time of the crash and rushed to the site on foot, arriving before the partial collapse. He recalls that the building-near the area of impact-was in flames, and he remembers seeing small pieces of debris, the largest of which might have been part of an engine shroud. He was at the heliport when a portion of the structure collapsed. The collapse initiated at the fifth floor along the building expansion joint, proceeded continuously and was completed within a few seconds. According to the Arlington County after-action report, this occurred at 957 a.m., or 19 minutes after impact.

Earlier Probst statements

http://www.militaryc.../fortress1.html (Approx. 9/11/2002)

'I knew I was dead'

Exactly 60 years later, half the world was watching the World Trade Center burn on television on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.

Frank Probst was one of them. A Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer, he was inspecting newly installed telecommunications wiring inside the five-story, 6.5-million-square-foot building.

The tall, soft-spoken Probst had a 10 a.m. meeting. About 9:25 a.m., he stopped by the renovation workers' trailer just south of the Pentagon heliport. Someone had a television turned on in the trailer's break room that showed smoke pouring out of the twin towers in New York.

"The Pentagon would make a pretty good target," someone in the break room commented.

The thought stuck with Probst as he picked up his notebook and walked to the North Parking Lot to attend his meeting.

Probst took a sidewalk alongside Route 27,
which runs near the Pentagon's western face. Traffic was at a standstill because of a road accident. Then, at about 9:35 a.m., he saw the airliner in the cloudless September sky.

American Airlines Flight 77 approached from the west, coming in low over the nearby five-story Navy Annex on a hill overlooking the Pentagon.

"He has lights off, wheels up, nose down," Probst recalled. The plane seemed to be accelerating directly toward him. He froze.

"I knew I was dead," he said later. "The only thing I thought was, 'Damn, my wife has to go to another funeral, and I'm not going to see my two boys again.'."

He dove to his right. He recalls the engine passing on one side of him, about six feet away.

The plane's right wing went through a generator trailer "like butter," Probst said. The starboard engine hit a low cement wall and blew apart.

He still can't remember the sound of the explosion.
Sometimes the memory starts to come back when he hears a particularly low-flying airliner heading into nearby Reagan National Airport, or when military jets fly over a burial at Arlington National Cemetery.

Most of the time, though, his memory is silent.

"It was pretty horrible," he said of the noiseless images he carries inside him, of the jet vanishing in a cloud of smoke and dust, and
bits of metal and concrete drifting down like confetti
.

On either side of him, three streetlights had been sheared in half by the airliner's wings at 12 to 15 feet above the ground. An engine had clipped the antenna off a Jeep Grand Cherokee stalled in traffic not far away.

(11/21/2001)

"
I was standing on the sidewalk (parallel to the site of impact).
..and I saw this plane coming right at me at what seemed like 300 miles an hour. I dove towards the ground and watched this great big engine from this beautiful airplane just vaporize," said Frank Probst, a member of the Pentagon renovations crew commented. "It looked like a huge fireball, pieces were flying out everywhere."

Our Analysis of Probst Account

Evaluating this testimony, we begin by noting that in the earlier accounts, Probst was standing on the sidewalk near highway 27. However, in the ASCE version of events, he is portrayed as being close to the heliport. There is no sidewalk from the construction trailers to the heliport, although there is a driveway that runs the length of the building directly in front which he could have been walking on and would have been more logical than going out to the sidewalk. The sidewalk by Highway 27 where lightpoles were being knocked down, is several hundred feet away from the heliport. If Probst were on his way to a meeting using any reasonably direct route, there would be no reason for him to be on the sidewalk by Highway 27. It would have made much more sense for him to walk on pavement and grass near the heliport. (An overview of the landscape at the Pentagon may be found at Jean-Pierre Desmoulins' web page, http://perso.wanadoo...dam-before.html which we highly recommend for context and further study.)

But if Probst were near the heliport, he would not have been in position to see details such as the clipped antenna on the Jeep Cherokee. So in the later version of the testimony, we find that Probst has been moved off the sidewalk, and his co-worker Don Mason has been brought in as the source of the information about the lamp poles and the clipped antenna (as well as to assure us that he did indeed see Probst standing there in the path of the oncoming plane.) While a cynical reader might suspect that certain details have been conveniently altered to "collectively provide a coherent and credible account of the events", we must admit the possibility of confusion in the early reports. The heliport does look a little bit like a sidewalk, and perhaps Probst has very good distant vision.

However, we still must ask how Frank Probst had the amazing presence of mind to observe the plane coming straight towards him at a speed of 300 to 450 mph, see it level out, dive to the ground, and still manage to see both engines as they impact objects outside the building. These impacts would have required him to have also altered his field of vision by almost 180 degrees concurrently with diving, during the last milliseconds of the plane's flight. All this after just being missed by one of the engines by 6 feet, and not being turned into a whirling dervish, or otherwise severely disoriented by the blast of air. Finally, while Probst claims that debris drifted down around him, the video of the Sugano event shows debris reflecting off the wall with tremendous momentum and velocity, like shrapnel from a bomb. We ask whether Probst sustained at least a few scratches from all the shrapnel.

It may seem amazing that Frank Probst could be so sincere in his testimony, and yet at the same time so badly mistaken. The authors have been down a long journey, questioning how that could be possible, and now we believe we know how it is done. For those who might like to take the same journey, some good places to start are www.hypnotism.org and http://www.rossinst.com/bluebird.htm .

Brian Salter pointed out that the ASCE report could possibly be interpreted as placing Probst on the sidewalk. Or, we would add, perhaps the ASCE reporter misunderstood where Probst was located, while the early report was correct. In the early report, the suggestion that the altitude of the plane was low enough to pass 6 feet away from Probst, and low enough to be trimming the antenna of an automobile on the road, is certainly wrong. The light pole evidence seems to indicate an altitude closer to 30 feet. An altitude of 30 feet might also explain why the automobiles were not tossed by wake turbulence, and why Probst was able to survive the jet blast.

*******************

You do realise that the "bouncing" description is not a direct quote either? Yet here, not only do you accept it, but are prepared to form a speculative case around it that flies in the face of the direct quote from Washington, "the momentum took it into the Pentagon".

Yes, I understand that. But it does lead one to wonder why it was said; and as I've pointed out it does lend itself to the possibility that what really happened is that the pentaplane pulled up a bit to make it over the pentagon in the last few seconds.

How do we decide which indirect quotes are 'good' and which are 'bad'?

How do we decide which indirect quotes are even better than direct quotes?

You are clearly applying some sort of rule, what is it?

Come on Q; we both know that you started in on this debate believing that the pentaplane crashed into the pentagon and I started into this debate believing that it flew over the pentagon. So it's only logical that I would point out how even the witnesses you bring up say things that suggest that the pentaplane really did fly over the pentagon, while you would do your best to show how they say things that suggest that the pentaplane crashed into the pentagon. This being said, I think I should reiterate that there are -so- many points which I believe point to the impossibility that the pentaplane crashed into the pentagon, not just what the witnesses observed; this really is just the tip of the iceberg.

Edited by Scott G
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

No. I put up a long spiel, and you reduce it so "simply mistaken" -.-. To reiterate, he placed the plane too high to have caused the damage seen in the original pentagon hole. It seems that the pull up was initiated well before arriving at the pentagon; thus the "bounce". When combined with the fact that he placed the plane's approach too high up on the pentagon to have caused the damage, the conclusion becomes clear; the pentaplane didn't hit the pentagon, it flew over it, with the fireball masking this fact. Assuming that there was some truth in the 5 frame video, you'll notice one thing; there were -2- explosions; the first jutted forward, the second upward; that first explosion may well account for all the debris on the pentalawn; the second one may have done a good job of essentially putting a curtain of fire up to mask the pentaplane's flyover.

Right, because remember what we discussed?

I’m going to summarise the conclusions, you are going to summarise the long spiel explanations :)

Come on Q; we both know that you started in on this debate believing that the pentaplane crashed into the pentagon and I started into this debate believing that it flew over the pentagon. So it's only logical that I would point out how even the witnesses you bring up say things that suggest that the pentaplane really did fly over the pentagon, while you would do your best to show how they say things that suggest that the pentaplane crashed into the pentagon.

Ok, so your explanation for setting different standards in treatment of the eyewitness testimony, is that we are each suffering from some degree of confirmation bias? We already have our story in place and are looking to back it. Me and you both, you say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

I hope you are not going to ignore my contributions in your summaries, Q24..... :)

Or is this just the Q24/Scott show? Like a kind of thread cum blog thing....

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Dave

Where did the idea of an airplane even came from???

Take a look of the original footage from CNN.

More:

The point is military is hiding alot; Even on offical clip released there is a small thing hitting pentagon that doesnt look anything like an Airplane. And too all who say that this is from terrorists tell me why isn't US military disclosing all videos from around the pentagon. Just tell me why would you hide this kind of evidence? Wouldn't you rather give public a full view on the things how they actualy happened? So you can give me all the proofs you want that an airplaner hit pentagon which is fairly impossible due to offical video due to debris due to military hiding those videos and plenty more. All of this was nothing but a game from Bush. And if this actualy was from a terorrist why not show the picture of dead Osama?? Again military keeps public in dark... So for short there is a ton of evidence that this was a planned military action, thats why the don't want to give you good people of US full view on things that happened. I don't like your gov. or military but i do like simple proud people as you are and i hope you stay like that inspite of everything.

Peace.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Ok, my points:

1- Are you a believer in the Amazing Pentalawn ™? Seriously, there's no way that the plane could have hit the pentalawn and "bounced" up again only to hit the Pentagon a moment later. Many witnesses believe that the plane "bounced" off the ground before hitting the pentagon, but all evidence shows that the pentalawn was untouched by any large object.

:tu:

:blush:

I think that although the 'witnesses' statements are often contradictory (and I think this is deliberate)

Why do you think that it was deliberate?

that their testimonies are designed to incorporate elements of the Official Account, re. the Pentagon.

I definitely think that some influence has been exerted over atleast some of their testimonies as well. Some of the things that happened on 9/11 itself are highly suggestive in my view. This was brought to my attention by an article that I came across recently from 911-strike.com, called Rebutting "Pentagon 9/11 Getting the Facts Straight" by Dennis Behreandt. Here's an excerpt of the article that I thought were quite interesting:

********************

As documented by Meyssan in his books "9/11The Big Lie" and "Pentagate" -- on the morning of September 11, the earliest reports from the Pentagon disaster indicated that a helicopter explosion or some other indeterminate "attack" took place. The national news media, the White House and the military were unable to ascertain that it was an airliner that struck the Pentagon, until this was (curiously) personally attested to by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who walked from his office to the disaster on a fact-finding mission. ("Big Lie", pp. 13-14; "Pentagate", pp. 94-95).

On Sept. 12, the Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher said "there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing... we have... what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft." Reporters speculated that perhaps most of the plane had been consumed by fire.

Meanwhile, other reporters were out gathering eyewitness testimony, and found that many people saw a Boeing aircraft approaching the Pentagon on a flight path over Arlington Cemetery or its Naval Annex. However, initial reports from individuals very close to the crash were strange they spoke of "a shrill noise", an "airplane which seemed to be able to hold eight or twelve persons", "something that made the sound of a missile", "like a cruise missile with wings" . Behreandt claims that all such remarks were metaphorical, but actually some were quite explicit, while others were later harmonized with the official story by the witnesses -- but only at a later date.

********************

And this one is to try and explain why clean bits of debris are outside and away from the building.....?

I certainly believe that the confetti like pieces of debris on the pentalawn and surrounding area is also quite interesting and is addressed in 911-strike.com's article, Missing Confetti Mystery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

I hope you are not going to ignore my contributions in your summaries, Q24..... :)

Or is this just the Q24/Scott show? Like a kind of thread cum blog thing....

The thing is bee, the explanation of your theory is already straightforward and of one standard across the board in regard to the eyewitnesses. In your theory, all of the one hundred plus eyewitnesses to a commercial aircraft in vicinity of the Pentagon can be categorised under one heading: Big Fat Fibbers. You confirm it here: -

well....as you know... :) ..all the witnesses can be discounted in my 'theory'...and their motive for

fabricating their stories would be that they were under security oaths and doing their patriotic duty

And so it is already clear what anyone needs to buy into to accept your theory – that all of the eyewitnesses were in employ of the U.S. government and doing their patriotic duty, and that no one else happened to witness the explosion… without presence of a plane. I believe if you put that to any balanced person they will not give your theory the time of day.

The flyover theory Scott promotes is more complex.

Of the eyewitnesses…

  • some oppose the theory.
  • some partially support the theory.
  • some have no bearing.

There further appear different explanations to discount the first group – some eyewitnesses may be agents, some eyewitnesses may be mistaken and some testimony may be fabricated by government agencies and/or the media. Then there are more intrigues such as the necessity to treat certain testimony to different standards.

What I’m trying to determine is exactly what must be bought into in all to accept a flyover theory. I believe that even Scott might think twice when a complete summary of what we are being asked to believe is put to him.

I hope that makes sense – it’s not that I’m ignoring your contributions. I already understand what you would have us believe. I do not yet have a full summary of what Scott would have us believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

No. I put up a long spiel, and you reduce it so "simply mistaken" -.-. To reiterate, he placed the plane too high to have caused the damage seen in the original pentagon hole. It seems that the pull up was initiated well before arriving at the pentagon; thus the "bounce". When combined with the fact that he placed the plane's approach too high up on the pentagon to have caused the damage, the conclusion becomes clear; the pentaplane didn't hit the pentagon, it flew over it, with the fireball masking this fact. Assuming that there was some truth in the 5 frame video, you'll notice one thing; there were -2- explosions; the first jutted forward, the second upward; that first explosion may well account for all the debris on the pentalawn; the second one may have done a good job of essentially putting a curtain of fire up to mask the pentaplane's flyover.

Right, because remember what we discussed?

I'm going to summarise the conclusions, you are going to summarise the long spiel explanations :)

I think it's more that I'm going to summarize the explanations and you're going to make some ambiguous assertions masquerading as summaries. Anyway, it's your list, do as you will.

How do we decide which indirect quotes are 'good' and which are 'bad'?

How do we decide which indirect quotes are even better than direct quotes?

You are clearly applying some sort of rule, what is it?

Come on Q; we both know that you started in on this debate believing that the pentaplane crashed into the pentagon and I started into this debate believing that it flew over the pentagon. So it's only logical that I would point out how even the witnesses you bring up say things that suggest that the pentaplane really did fly over the pentagon, while you would do your best to show how they say things that suggest that the pentaplane crashed into the pentagon. This being said, I think I should reiterate that there are -so- many points which I believe point to the impossibility that the pentaplane crashed into the pentagon, not just what the witnesses observed; this really is just the tip of the iceberg.

Ok, so your explanation for setting different standards in treatment of the eyewitness testimony, is that we are each suffering from some degree of confirmation bias? We already have our story in place and are looking to back it. Me and you both, you say?

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that we will each look at the evidence and look for pieces of it that confirm what we already believe. The good thing here is that, because we have different beliefs as to what occurred, we should be able to get a more complete picture then if it were just 2 people with the same viewpoint. In essence, I sidestepped your questions. Why did I do this? Because I thought it was more important to address what I think is the most important element here; that we are both looking for evidence that supports our own viewpoints. That being said, the questions you asked do have merit as well. The answers to your initial questions:

Q1: How do we decide which indirect quotes are 'good' and which are 'bad'?

A1: There may be extra information which would render an indirect quote/paraphrase better or worse. Then again, there may not be. We'd have to take each paraphrase on a case by case basis. My most important point here is that what quoting what someone said is generally better then someone paraphrasing what they said; the reason for this is that paraphrases run the risk of the chinese whispers/broken telephone effect.

Q2: How do we decide which indirect quotes are even better than direct quotes?

A2: This should be determined on a case by case basis. That being said, I think that if a paraphrase of something a person said lines up better with the evidence than a direct quote from a person, this might be such a case. The reason for this is that witness testimony can change. An example of where I think a paraphrase may be particularly important is Erik Dihle's initial testimony that some of the witnesses thought that a bomb had gone off at the pentagon and the the pentaplane "kept on going".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that we will each look at the evidence and look for pieces of it that confirm what we already believe.

Then why are you disagreeing?

Scott, what do you think confirmation bias is?

You just defined it.

I’m talking to someone who will disagree with me without knowing that he agrees!

God help me.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Then why are you disagreeing?

Scott, what do you think confirmation bias is?

There is a difference between looking for information that supports one's viewpoint and favouring information that supports one's viewpoint based solely on said information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

Why do you think that it was deliberate?

I think that discrepancies were built into the witness statements to befuddle and confuse.

Also to add weight to the..'oh you can't trust eye witness accounts, 100%'... as kind of insurance

against any REAL eye witnesses coming forward...and their testimony would be buried by the fakes.

certain elements of the Official Account had to be covered like the generator, the poles, the clean

debris......the first three witnesses in this thread..Probst, Mason and Washington,

between them covered these three points. In my view they were, all three...fabricating their stories.

And we'll see how the other stories go... as other witnesses are introduced by Q24.... :)

Scott...

I definitely think that some influence has been exerted over atleast some of their testimonies as well.

I think most...if not ALL of the Witness testimonies were scripted for the people chosen to make them....definitely

for any who claimed to see the plane impact the building. They might have been told something like..."say what you like

but make sure you include...A B and/or C..."

Scott...

As documented by Meyssan in his books "9/11The Big Lie" and "Pentagate" -- on the morning of September 11, the earliest reports from the Pentagon disaster indicated that a helicopter explosion or some other indeterminate "attack" took place. The national news media, the White House and the military were unable to ascertain that it was an airliner that struck the Pentagon, until this was (curiously) personally attested to by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who walked from his office to the disaster on a fact-finding mission. ("Big Lie", pp. 13-14; "Pentagate", pp. 94-95).

Actually....re the bolded above

http://www.rense.com/general20/hunt.htm

As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this.

note it was a TRUCK that was initially reported.

The truck that I am now speculating...sped towards the building and was fired upon by missiles (maybe 3 as per the 3 exit holes)

see my post about it...on a previous page.

:tu:

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

some good points made in above video..

Where did the idea of an airplane even came from???

Take a look of the original footage from CNN.

we've covered this one earlier...and the wording is confusing but the reporter was refering to evidence about a plane

hitting the ground NEAR the Pentagon...as opposed to actually into it...

More:

The point is military is hiding alot; Even on offical clip released there is a small thing hitting pentagon that doesnt look anything like an Airplane. And too all who say that this is from terrorists tell me why isn't US military disclosing all videos from around the pentagon. Just tell me why would you hide this kind of evidence? Wouldn't you rather give public a full view on the things how they actualy happened? So you can give me all the proofs you want that an airplaner hit pentagon which is fairly impossible due to offical video due to debris due to military hiding those videos and plenty more. All of this was nothing but a game from Bush. And if this actualy was from a terorrist why not show the picture of dead Osama?? Again military keeps public in dark... So for short there is a ton of evidence that this was a planned military action, thats why the don't want to give you good people of US full view on things that happened. I don't like your gov. or military but i do like simple proud people as you are and i hope you stay like that inspite of everything.

Peace.

This video is a real good one and I haven't seen it before....nice find.

Do you know what.....I think the explosion that was heard AFTER the so-called initial impact

(10:10 time stamp on Fox News report)

was done deliberately, by the military...to make the building collapse so that the hole,

that was too small for the alleged plane would be destroyed. And the whole 'scene' would be messed up.

Cheers Nuke_em

:tu:

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Why do you think that it was deliberate?

I think that discrepancies were built into the witness statements to befuddle and confuse.

I think this may have been the case for a few, especially those who were paraphrased, and especially for anyone who is essentially anonymous to this day, but as to the rest, I have serious doubts as to that. I do believe, however, that witnesses would be influenced by what they heard and/or were told by sources of information such as the media and officials. I certainly believe that some eye witnesses are flat out lying about atleast some portions of their accounts; Lloyde England's claim that his taxi cab was speared by a light pole allegedly hit by the pentaplane comes to mind, and Wheelhouse's "second plane" shadowing the pentaplane is known to be untrue as well.

Also to add weight to the..'oh you can't trust eye witness accounts, 100%'... as kind of insurance

against any REAL eye witnesses coming forward...and their testimony would be buried by the fakes.

I think that things were much more ambiguous before CIT went down to Arlington, Virginia, found a whole bunch of eye witnesses and interviewed most of them on video camera, frequently at the location that they claim they were at when they saw the pentaplane, as well as drawing lines on maps as to where they thought the pentaplane flew. The fact that nearly all of the pentaplane witnesses draw an NoC approach is, in my view, solid evidence that the plane took an NoC approach. The only exception that I know of is Wheelhouse, and he's already lost credibility because of his testimony of a "second plane" shadowing the pentaplane that no one else saw.

certain elements of the Official Account had to be covered like the generator, the poles, the clean debris......the first three witnesses in this thread..Probst, Mason and Washington, between them covered these three points. In my view they were, all three...fabricating their stories.

I don't believe that CIT or PFT thinks that they fabricated their stories, atleast not completely, That being said, there are some parts of Probst's story that doesn't fit with either the NoC -or- the SoC approach. Probst places the plane literally 6 feet above his head; even the SoC flight path would have had the plane about 30 feet above his head at his position. This does make me wonder about his story; the fact that ASCE reported that he stated that the plane flew over the Navy Annex fits in well with the NoC approach, however, and is incompatible with the SoC approach. I admittedly never got too into Mason.. there was some issues as to where he was and I just said, heck with it, next :-p. As to Washington, he doesn't really seem to have been looking at whether it came in from an SoC or NoC approach; he seems to be more of an "impact" witness only. I put impact in quotes because there were several parts of his story that suggest that what he actually observed was the flyover, which CIT, PFT and I all believe was meant to look as if the pentaplane had crashed into the pentagon.

And we'll see how the other stories go... as other witnesses are introduced by Q24.... :)

Aye.

I definitely think that some influence has been exerted over atleast some of their testimonies as well.

I think most...if not ALL of the Witness testimonies were scripted for the people chosen to make them....definitely for any who claimed to see the plane impact the building. They might have been told something like..."say what you like but make sure you include...A B and/or C..."

I simply refuse to believe that americans are so sheeplike that you can pick any person off the street and have them lie on command. I certainly believe that Lloyde England and Wheelhouse essentially did this, and there are a few others I suspect, but I think these people were paid political operatives, not people off the street who were persuaded to lie for the official story. In the case of Lloyde England, I think that he feels somewhat guilty about his deception, but I also think that he's afraid of what would happen if he confessed to it.

Some of the things that happened on 9/11 itself are highly suggestive in my view. This was brought to my attention by an article that I came across recently from 911-strike.com, called Rebutting "Pentagon 9/11 Getting the Facts Straight" by Dennis Behreandt. Here's an excerpt of the article that I thought were quite interesting:

********************

As documented by Meyssan in his books "9/11The Big Lie" and "Pentagate" -- on the morning of September 11, the earliest reports from the Pentagon disaster indicated that a helicopter explosion or some other indeterminate "attack" took place. The national news media, the White House and the military were unable to ascertain that it was an airliner that struck the Pentagon, until this was (curiously) personally attested to by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who walked from his office to the disaster on a fact-finding mission. ("Big Lie", pp. 13-14; "Pentagate", pp. 94-95).

********************

Actually....re the bolded above

http://www.rense.com...eral20/hunt.htm

As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this.

note it was a TRUCK that was initially reported.

The truck that I am now speculating...sped towards the building and was fired upon by missiles (maybe 3 as per the 3 exit holes)

see my post about it...on a previous page.

:tu:

First of all, although I know that some have speculated that the pentagon had anti aircraft defenses, I haven't actually seen any hard evidence that this was so. Secondly, why would they place these defenses in such a way that it would have to create exit holes in the building? Wouldn't it make more sense to have this system outside of the building, and thus not have to damage the building it was meant to protect? I really liked your photograph of 3 holes in the pentagon, but I think you've misinterpreted its significance; I don't think it means that missiles were fired from the pentagon; I think it means that there were atleast 3 large explosions at the pentagon and this is what created those holes. As to the possibility that there was a booby trapped truck, aside from this initial news report, I haven't heard any evidence that this was the case. That being said, if any other evidence does surface, I'd be happy to see it. One thing I will say is that it's much easier for ground vehicles to hug the ground then it is for airplanes to do the same; in fact, it's the only way they move ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

I simply refuse to believe that americans are so sheeplike that you can pick any person off the street and have them lie on command. I certainly believe that Lloyde England and Wheelhouse essentially did this, and there are a few others I suspect, but I think these people were paid political operatives, not people off the street who were persuaded to lie for the official story. In the case of Lloyde England, I think that he feels somewhat guilty about his deception, but I also think that he's afraid of what would happen if he confessed to it.

I think most (many?) of the witnesses had military connections? and would already be under oaths of secrecy.

And would, in their view be doing their patriotic duty to back up the Official Account.

To cover up...in my theory...that missiles were fired at a speeding 'booby trapped truck' and that Flight 77

was brought down somewhere far away....like over the Atlantic. Then debris was placed at the scene...to explain

away what really happened to Flight 77...

Even Lloyde Englands wife worked for the FBI ?

First of all, although I know that some have speculated that the pentagon had anti aircraft defenses, I haven't actually seen any hard evidence that this was so. Secondly, why would they place these defenses in such a way that it would have to create exit holes in the building? Wouldn't it make more sense to have this system outside of the building, and thus not have to damage the building it was meant to protect? I really liked your photograph of 3 holes in the pentagon, but I think you've misinterpreted its significance; I don't think it means that missiles were fired from the pentagon; I think it means that there were atleast 3 large explosions at the pentagon and this is what created those holes. As to the possibility that there was a booby trapped truck, aside from this initial news report, I haven't heard any evidence that this was the case. That being said, if any other evidence does surface, I'd be happy to see it. One thing I will say is that it's much easier for ground vehicles to hug the ground then it is for airplanes to do the same; in fact, it's the only way they move ;)

If you go back and look at my post about it.....the missiles would have been Ground Defence?...and they would

have fired on the truck from three different locations....outside the Pentagon....so there would be one

entry hole but three exit holes.

going to get the pic again..to make it clear

here

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm

911pentagonexit_holes.jpg

911pentagonmissilepaths.jpg

don't want to go off topic too much with this....I hope you can understand what I'm talking about.

.

Edited by bee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

you are entitled to your opinion...but I would say that missiles are designed and equipped to penetrate

and that an airliner engine is not. (bouncing or otherwise)

Bombs are designed to penetrate, and some missiles. Air to air missiles or Surface to Air missiles explode on contact or proximity. It is easier to shoot a plane down with a nearby explosion then to risk a miss and the missile just flys off. Air to ground and Ground to Ground and Naval missiles all have some penetration abililty, but they are generally fairly small and intended to destroy hard targets like tanks and small ships. I doubt very much any missile the US has will penetrate through 6 layers of concrete wall to blow out those three holes.

I was Army, and not Navy or Air Force, so I don't know the exact specs on their missiles, but unless these were specifically to attack bunkers they would not go through so many walls. And bunkers were usually hit with bombs. I doubt also that bombs could have been deployed that would have hit the building so low and then penetrated so deep.

And....from your link
The beach can also experience large waves which makes it popular with windsurfers and skimboarders.

If it was really that dangerous would they allow windsurfers? Really? That is lawsuits ready to go right there. Likely the sand kicked up is from the occational 15 foot above the beach idiot pilot who comes in too low. The warning is a general "No lawsuits here please", to avoid frivilous lawsuits.

Clearly however the greater majority of these planes land while passing 30 to 20 feet above the sand-sitting tourists and no one is hurt, tossed about or even sanded very much. This seems like a dead point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I think most (many?) of the witnesses had military connections? and would already be under oaths of secrecy.

And would, in their view be doing their patriotic duty to back up the Official Account.

To cover up...in my theory...that missiles were fired at a speeding 'booby trapped truck' and that Flight 77

was brought down somewhere far away....like over the Atlantic. Then debris was placed at the scene...to explain

away what really happened to Flight 77...

Even Lloyde Englands wife worked for the FBI ?

Where did the missiles come from then? No one reported any armored vehicles with missile systems mounted on them. Are we to assume and X-Men like lawn door opening and a missile rack rising up out of the ground?

How did they get the debris, including the human remains off the downed plane and to the Pentagon within minutes or hours of the explosion? Did they kidnap all the passengers ahead of time and route them to DC and kill them in an explosion and then run around scattering the remains after the explosion so that they would get burned in situ. This is not conspiricy, this is the out and out murder of hundreds of people in a planned, grizzly, horrendous execution that makes Stalin look like a choir boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bee

Me thinks DieChecker protesteth, too much.... :)

The Pentagon would naturally have ground defense...built into the area somehow.

The debris could have been fetched from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, over the river.

The bodies (rest their souls) would have been the poor people who died in the Pentagon.

Records of DNA from Flight 77 passengers (RIP) could easily have been falsified.

There is NO WAY that a plane would have been allowed to smash into the Pentagon.

IMO flight 77 was taken over the Atlantic and shot down...as an act of defence.

Probst and Mason would have been affected by Wake Turbulence with the height they claimed

the plane to be.

that's enough for now. Don't want to go too off topic...but you were getting yourself in a right knot there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Apologies for what is about to transpire...

Me thinks DieChecker protesteth, too much.... :)

Darling, DieChecker speaks with a lot of sense. You would do well to consider what he has to say.

The Pentagon would naturally have ground defense...built into the area somehow.

What makes you think there would be an anti-hijacked-airline-ray-gun prior to the events of 911 at the Pentagon? Seriously. What in the world would make you think that anyone would expect an assault of this type well within the continental US?

The debris could have been fetched from the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, over the river.

Or maybe it was wiggle-nosed in by Tabitha from Bewitched?

Get real bee. You don't think that the Smithsonian keeps records or something?

The bodies (rest their souls) would have been the poor people who died in the Pentagon.

Yes, many people died at that Pentagon. It was quite tragic and I personally find it quite disrespectful that people ignore the deaths of the passengers and pilots with their ridiculous conspiracy theories. Quite frankly, it makes me sick.

Records of DNA from Flight 77 passengers (RIP) could easily have been falsified.

Seriously? How easy would that be? Are you joking?

There is NO WAY that a plane would have been allowed to smash into the Pentagon.

Allowed, no. But a plane did smash into the Pentagon and no amount of nonsensical theorizing will alter that fact.

IMO flight 77 was taken over the Atlantic and shot down...as an act of defence.

This is more ridiculous than the nonsensical Beam Weapon garbage theories that some people adhere to. Sorry, but it is.

Probst and Mason would have been affected by Wake Turbulence with the height they claimed

the plane to be.

Sure they would have, but it wouldn't change their testimonies and what they observed. Do you think they would have been sucked up into the engines or something? Nonsense.

that's enough for now. Don't want to go too off topic...but you were getting yourself in a right knot there.

Right knot... yes, that is a good description for the crap you're peddling here bee. Sorry dear, but this is just nonsense through and through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

booN, you didn't really expect a sensible and plausible argument did you? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Me thinks DieChecker protesteth, too much.... :)

It's a mental hobby. I don't seriously care one way or the other. I'm interested in the challenge in looking for the problems in the logic/theory and pointing them out. With some opinion tossed in for good measure of course. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • Obviousman